IRSHAD HUSSAIN,PRESIDENT - (1.) BOTH these appeals, one by the complainant -consumer and the other by the Insurance Company, have been filed against the order dated 30.7.2007 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing Consumer Complaint No. 15 of 2003 and directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs. 56,000 within a period of 60 days from the date of the order, failing which, the amount has been directed to carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment and also to pay Rs. 5,000 as damages towards harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses.
(2.) COMPLAINANT had claimed compensation of Rs. 1,70,000 together with interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs. 15,000 by way of litigation expenses. By way of his appeal, the complainant has urged that the compensation awarded by the impugned order, is inadequate and is not based on proper appreciation of the material on record and the expenses incurred in the repair of the accidental vehicle. The Insurance Company has, however, urged that the District Forum has not properly and legally considered the fact that the complaint was hopelessly barred by time and that the complainant having not complied with the formalities of the company and having not brought the vehicle for re -inspection, the claim had been validly repudiated and the complainant was not entitled to any compensation by way of reimbursement of loss suffered to the vehicle in the accident, which took place on 23.9.1989, when the insured vehicle No. DIG -5717 fell down in a gorge at Kolukhet, Mussorie, District Dehradun.
(3.) THE submissions of the learned attorney for the complainant and the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, give rise to the following points for determination of these appeals on merit: (i) Whether the complaint was barred by time and the finding to the contrary of the District Forum, is incorrect? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded is inadequate or the complainant was not entitled to any compensation at all? Point No. (i) -Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides limitation period for a consumer complaint and the same is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Para 7 of the consumer complaint clearly narrates the fact that the claim preferred for reimbursement of the loss, was repudiated vide letter dated 29.6.1994 of the Insurance Company. This letter No. 310900/OPS/SM/94 -93 dated 29.6.1994 is Paper No. 25 on the record of Insurance Company's appeal. There can be no doubt that the cause of action has arisen by repudiation of the claim on 29.6.1994 and the learned Attorney for the complainant rightly submitted that the period of limitation started running from this date. Since the Consumer Complaint No. 15 of 2003 was filed on 23.1.2003, much after period of two years from the date of the cause of action, the period during which, the complainant was prosecuting earlier complaint and consequential legal proceedings, need to be excluded for computation of the period of limitation, keeping in view the mandate of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which has been made applicable to the proceedings under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The following facts would suggest as to how much time during which the complainant was prosecuting earlier complaint and consequential proceedings, need to be excluded for computation of the period of limitation of two years for the Consumer Complaint No. 15 of 2003, the order in which gave rise to these appeals: Sl. No. Nature of the Proceedings Date of institution/filing Date of disposal/dismissal Number of days of the pendency required to be excluded (a) Complaint No. 621 of 1994 21.9.1994 28.2.1995 160 days (b) Application for restoration of Complaint No. 621 of 1994 at its original number 14.7.1997 27.10.1998 470 days (c) Appeal No. 60 of 2002, filed to set aside the order dated 27.10.1998 passed in restoration application 11.12.1998 (filed before State Commission, Lucknow) 10.12.2002 1459 days Total: 2089 days;